Earlier this year at the World Economic Forum (WEF), Hans Rosling opened his presentation, “Sustainable Development: Demystifying the Facts,” with three questions for the audience about the state of global development (about extreme poverty, measles vaccination, and population in 2100). He was testing their knowledge in order to illustrate how preconceived ideas will do us wrong.

He had done this test before. Rosling conducted studies with Swedes, Americans, and chimps about the state of global development. The chimps were asked to choose a banana that is associated with 1 of 3 possible answers, and they got the answer correct 33 percent of the time. In essence, they were bound to be right 1 time in 3; the humans were not as lucky. Basically, according to his study, chimps in a zoo have a better chance of choosing the right answers at random to questions about the state of the world than the average Swede and American does.

It is detrimental when we underestimate the progress that has been made just in the last 15 years. In 1964 (the date he starts with his child mortality chart), the world was clearly divided into two worlds: the developing world with large families and high child mortality and the developed world with the opposite. Today, there really is just one world, with a few outlying countries, mainly in Africa.

It’s also a world of inequality within countries. Take India, for example. “If someone comes from outer space and wants to see the world,” says Rosling, “and [they] have only one day to visit, they should go to India. Because they can see everything in India: the most fantastic success [and] progress being made, but also remote, rural areas where still, extreme poverty is rampant — but decreasing.”

This is where the post-2015 agenda has to focus the world’s energy and money: the still marginalized, the remote and hard-to-reach areas. This is why we at the Microcredit Summit Campaign are championing six financial inclusion strategies (our “six pathways“) that we believe hold the greatest promise in helping to end extreme poverty at the frontiers — at the margins of society in economic, social, and geographic terms. The six pathways offer a means to reduce the cost of delivery (mobile money), help the poor build assets (cash transfers linked with savings), tackle the challenge of a weak health infrastructure, and more.

But, this isn’t just about practitioners and donors. With the launch of the Global Goals for Sustainable Development, we are seeing a massive media campaign targeted at you and me. It is a media campaign designed to get people excited and believe in the possibility of achieving the SDGs. Each goal has been reworded to express greatly simplified concepts. No numbers. No percentage signs. Just simple framing: No poverty, no hunger, good health, and so on.

It is also is designed to put “we the people” in the driver’s seat of this “next generation” of development. This is good because we are going to need everyone behind this agenda to fund it and traditional “aid” funding will not suffice. Tax revenue must contribute to the estimated $172.5 trillion price tag (over 15 years). The MDGs cost $915 billion in total. That’s $114 billion per goal compared to more than $10 trillion per goal for our post-2015 agenda.

In an interview on NPR’s Goats and Soda blog, Paul O’Brien of Oxfam America said, “It’s not just about more aid and donors doing more. This is going to be about sustained political will by governments to use their own money to tax corporations more effectively and make sure the money from their natural resources goes to poverty reduction.” This is the same conclusion in Who Pays for Progress?, a report from RESULTS UK about how to finance healthcare in new middle income countries. And, we can only do this if we understand what Rosling is trying to show us with his charts: “We can make the world much better. The long-term trend is going in the right direction.”

I would add, don’t underestimate what a world united by a set of global goals can achieve.

Watch Hans Rosling’s presentation at the World Economic Forum

Here is Rosling’s first question for WEF attendees:

In the last 20 years, the proportion of people living in extreme poverty has…? A. almost doubled, B. remained more or less the same, C. almost halved.

The answer was C (though the numbers of extreme poor may not have decreased in absolute terms). How many got it right? 61 percent of respondents from the WEF were right; in an online survey he conducted, 23 percent from Sweden and 5 percent from the US answered C.

How many of the world’s one-year-old children are vaccinated against measles? A. 2 in 10, B. 5 in 10, C. 8 in 10.

Again, the answer was C, and 23 percent of WEF got it, 8 percent of Swedes, and 17 percent of Americans.

How many children will there be in the world in 2100? A. almost 4 billion, B. 3 billion, C. 2 billion (with no increase from 2000).

What does this mean? When you answer worse than random, it means that the problem is not lack of knowledge, the problem is that you carry preconceived ideas, which makes your score worse than chimps.

The whole point of this exercise queued up his presentation (starting at 6:33) on the state of child mortality between 1964 and 2012 (hint: the vast majority of countries are doing amazingly well). He showed how child mortality today in Bangladesh (8:52) is better than the state of child mortality in Italy in 1964 and that even the worst off families (women with absolutely no education) are, today, where the better-off and most-educated Bangladeshis were in 2001.

Hans Rosling shows why the concept of “developing countries” (those with less than US$12,000 per capita) doesn’t have much meaning anymore — for a happy reason. We have great reason to be optimistic about ending extreme poverty by 2030.

The main reason for optimism is the evidence of the past…the long term trend is going in the right direction.

The United Nations recently issued The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015, the latest assessment of progress towards the eight MDGs. In short, they have had mixed results. This article is part of a blog series reflecting on the MDGs and the U.N. report. These are produced in partnership with our colleagues at RESULTS (our parent organization).

>>Authored by Ifesinachi Sam-Emuwa, an Atlas Corps Fellow and the U.S Department of State fellowship Alumni

The launch of the new Global Goals for Sustainable Development (also called “SDGs”) this month during the U.N. General Assembly will focus world attention once again on the global development framework. Countries and the global community must use this opportunity to focus not only on the future, but also on the unfinished work of the MDGs.

The MDGs came as a global development framework to drive the global fight against poverty; to improve education, health, and the environment; and also to boost partnerships among member nations to tackle these issues.

World leaders from 189 United Nations member states signed this global framework, agreeing to achieve its goals, targets, and indicators between 2000 and 2015. As that period comes to an end by September, 2015, it is important to understand how well the different countries performed against the goals. Knowing this will allow the global community to re-position strategically in bid to achieve the SDGs, which 193 member states of the U.N. will adopt by September 2015.

The proportion of children under age five sleeping under insecticide-treated mosquito nets for selected countries in sub-Saharan Africa has grown exponentially since 2001. Source: The Millennium Development Goals Report, 2015

MDG 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases

Besides other issues like eradication of extreme poverty and achieving universal primary education being tackled by the MDGs, the achievement of the health MDGs has been of great concern. Much focus was particularly put on achieving MDG 6 to fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria (ATM) — deadly diseases that kill millions of people every year.

From The Millennium Development Goals Report, 2015

In fact, according to the World Health Organization, these are the latest statistics of the ATM:

In 2014, approximately 1.2 million people died from HIV-related causes globally (fact sheet).

In 2013, 9 million people fell ill with TB and 1.5 million died from the disease (fact sheet).

The MDG agenda helped to focus both energy and awareness on the fight against ATM, and progress to reach these targets and were driven by funding from partners like the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, and other donor funding to implementing countries. Awareness about these diseases has increased, stigma and discrimination have been reduced, and people are learning how to avoid contracting these diseases. In that regard, MDG 6 has had huge global success, especially around treatment and management of the ATM.

For example, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), 40 percent of people living with HIV received anti-retroviral treatment (ART) in 2014. New advancements in malaria treatment have been achieved, with WHO now recommending the use of ACT (artemisinin-based combination therapy) antimalarial drug used in the treatment of malaria. Controlling the spread of tuberculosis (TB) has also improved through the DOTS (directly observed treatment, short-course) centers, these are centers that provides TB patients with treatments while directly observing them. These are all steps in the right direction for the eradication of the ATM.

Nigeria’s strategy for MDG 6

Nigeria made its own efforts to implement programs geared towards eradicating ATM by establishing agencies to oversee the implementation of interventions. The National Agency for the Control of AIDS (NACA), the National Malaria Control Programme (NMCP), and the National TB and Leprosy Control Programme (NTBLCP) were established in a bid to contribute to the global fight against ATM in Nigeria.

Nigeria has made a lot of progress towards achieving MDG 6 and other MDGs — but isn’t there yet[1]. Like many other countries (Kenya, for example), Nigeria needs to focus on domestic resource mobilization and also to use the new opportunity presented by the SDGS to refocus its national strategy. Nigeria’s government should focus interventions on equity; using the equity lens, Nigeria could ensure that the poorest and most vulnerable people are reached with the various health interventions.

The question of whether or not Nigeria has achieved the MDGs should not impede the country from focusing on stamping out HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. Nigeria successfully rallied against Ebola in 2014 and has now reached a one year polio-free milestone. With effort, resources, and political will, Nigeria can meet its agreed-to milestones on HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria and save lives.

About the Author

Ms. Ifesinachi Sam-Emuwa is a Professional Fellow for the U.S Department of State Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. She is also an Atlas Corps Fellow and a USAID CIDI volunteer. She has over eight years of professional experience in the nonprofit sector working with Treasureland Health Builders Initiative; she earned a Bachelor’s of Science in Health Education from the Nnamdi Azikiwe University and a Master Degree in Community Development and Social Work from University of Lagos. She has Certifications in Global Health and International women’s health & human rights from the USAID and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health eLearning Center and Stanford University Online respectively. While working as a Project Coordinator and Community Development Specialist with Treasureland Health Builders Initiative under the Global Fund Malaria and HIV/AIDS Project, she helped improve the health of rural dwellers reducing the incidence of malaria and HIV/AIDS in Western Nigeria.

Ms. Ifesinachi is passionate about reproductive health of young people and women, and has trained over 3,800 women and girls on becoming community volunteers in that area. She has authored three books and has received several awards for her outstanding contributions to youth, women & community development in Nigeria. Through these experiences, she developed strong project coordination and implementation skills.

MDG 5: Improve maternal health

Target 5.A: Reduce by three quarters, between 1990 and 2015, the maternal mortality ratio

Click to enlarge. Source: The Millennium Development Goals Report, 2015

In 1990, 380 pregnant women were dying for every 100,000 live births. As of 2013, the global maternal mortality ratio has decreased by 45 percent to 210 women per 100,000 live births. The highest gains were seen in South and Southeast Asia with a 64 percent and 57 percent reduction, respectively. Developing regions overall achieved a 46 percent reduction. Maternal survival has been aided by a one-third increase in childbirth attendance by skilled health personnel. Thus, the news in the U.N. Millennium Development Goals Report for MDG 5 is promising.

Nonetheless, progress towards improving maternal health so far falls far short of the targets set under MDG 5 and has lagged far behind the other MDGs. Additionally, global figures tend to mask regional inequalities. For example, there were 510 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in sub-Saharan Africa compared to 190 in South Asia and 140 in Southeast Asia.

Progress in raising the proportion of births delivered with skilled personnel has been modest over the last 15 years, reflecting the lack of universal access to care. Indeed, one in four babies still being delivered without skilled personnel and wide disparities are found among regions. For example, there is a 52 percent spread between the largest rural/urban disparity across regions:

In Central Africa, 32 percent of births were attended by skilled personnel compared to 84 percent in urban areas.

In East Asia, there is no difference between urban and rural areas.

Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia pull down the developing region average. Overall, 56 percent of births in rural areas are attended by skilled health personnel compared to 87 percent of births in urban areas.

Click to enlarge. Source: The Millennium Development Goals Report, 2015

Target 5.B: Achieve, by 2015, universal access to reproductive health
After 25 years of slow progress, only half of pregnant women in developing regions receive the minimum of four antenatal care visits recommended by the World Health Organization. Once more, coverage levels in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia trail the other regions. Sub-Saharan Africa has barely increased from 47 percent to 49 percent of pregnant women; South Asia has the lowest coverage at 36 percent (though it increased from 23 percent). Moreover, despite having doubled contraceptive use [1] in sub-Saharan Africa from 13 to 28 percent, sub-Saharan Africa still trails all other regions.

Click to enlarge. Source: The Millennium Development Goals Report, 2015

Proven health-care interventions can prevent or manage the complications that cause maternal deaths, such as hemorrhage, infections, and high blood pressure. These complications are concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, accounting for 86 percent of all deaths worldwide in 2013. Use of contraceptives also contributes to maternal health by reducing unintended pregnancies, unsafe abortions, and maternal deaths.

The report tells us that contraceptive use has risen in all regions and 90 percent of users were using effective contraceptive methods. However, the unmet need is still high (24-25 percent) in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceana. Other developing regions hover around 11-14 percent unmet need, and the overall use in those regions is significantly higher than in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceana.

The adolescent birth rate shows a mixed story. While the global rate for developing regions has fallen by half (from 34 to 17 births per 1000 girls), it hides poor progress in Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean. Indeed, in three regions (Southeast Asia, the Caucasus and Central Asia, and North Africa), some of the gains in the adolescent birth rate from 2000 reversed in 2015. Moreover, progress in East Asia was stagnant over the last 15 years.

The report calls for urgently needed intensified efforts to delay childbearing and prevent unintended pregnancies among adolescents. By increasing opportunities to go to school and for paid employment, we would see an overall improved maternal and child health as well as reduced poverty, greater gender equality, and women’s empowerment.

Maternal health in the post-2015 development agenda

The new Global Goals for Sustainable Development, which are set to be approved at the Sustainable Development Summit September 25 to 27, encompasses a broader, more ambitious and inclusive health goal. Goal 3 seeks to “Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.” Indeed, it seeks to reduce the global mortality ratio to fewer than 70 deaths per 100,000 live births. Under Goal 3, countries will agree to ensure, by 2030, universal access to sexual and reproductive healthcare services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programs — for which the microfinance sector can be a key partner.

The report concludes on the inequalities in data availability on maternal health among and within regions. The lack of data is a key factor contributing to the unfinished MDG agenda, hampering efforts to establish priorities on national, regional, and global health. In the post-2015 period, it is imperative to have better and more data, especially concerning registration of births and deaths, in order to set adequate policy priorities, target resources more efficiently, and measure improvements.

In order to build on the successes of the MDGs and achieve Goal 3 of the SDGs, the 18th Microcredit Summit will focus on integrated health and microfinance as one of the six pathways out of poverty. Empowerment of women — which can help reduce maternal mortality more quickly and efficiently — will also be an important theme.

Footnote

[1] “Contraceptive use” is defined concerning women aged 15-49, married or in union, who are using any method of contraception

The United Nations recently issued The Millennium Development Goals Report, 2015, the latest assessment of progress towards the eight MDGs. In short, they have had mixed results. This article is part of a blog series reflecting on the MDGs and the U.N. report. These are produced in partnership with our colleagues at RESULTS.

MDG 4: Reduce child mortality

Target 4.A: Reduce by two-thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the under-five mortality rate

From The Millennium Development Goals Report, 2015

The numbers appear heartening. According to the latest assessment on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), deaths of infants and children under five have greatly reduced. The under-five mortality rate has declined by more than half, from 90 to 43 deaths per 1000 births. Moreover, the annual rate of reduction in child deaths has more than doubled since 1990, and the rate has accelerated the most in Africa.

We learn that 4 out of every 5 of children have received at least one dose of the measles vaccine, preventing 15.6 million deaths between 2000 and 2013. In all, some 48 million children under five are alive today because of smart investments and increasing access to cost-effective health programs over the last 15 years.

This is good news for children around the world; however, underlying these advances is news that the achievements are not equitably distributed regionally, between rural and urban areas, nor socioeconomically.

Across all regions, progress toward MDG 4 has been “fair” to “excellent.” Furthest from reaching the target, though, are those living in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. While sub-Saharan Africa has had the largest decline in child mortality rates, it still experiences half of all child deaths in the world. Of the 10 countries with the highest number of under-five deaths, 5 are in Africa: Nigeria (#2 at 750,000), DR Congo (#4 at 305,000), Ethiopia (#5 at 184,000), Angola (#7 at 169,000), and Tanzania (#10 at 98,000). See the full list in this infographic from Humanosphere.

Children living in rural areas are 1.7 times more likely to die than those living in urban populations. Child mortality is 1.9 times as prevalent among poor households as among wealthy. Those whose mothers lack education are 2.8 times more likely to die than if their mothers had reached the secondary or higher level. So, of the 16,000 children under five who die each day — mostly due to preventable causes such as pneumonia, diarrhea, and malaria — they are likely to be from poor, rural, and uneducated households.

Have we really made substantial progress achieving MDG 4 when young kids in rural and poor communities continue to be the ones more likely to die before their fifth birthday? Allowing this population to fall behind will only exacerbate the vicious cycle of poverty. In order to make permanent advances in reducing early deaths, global development actors need to narrow in on rural and impoverished areas, especially in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

Where do we go from here?

Recognizing the need for a renewed effort towards improving health of the poorest households, the Microcredit Summit Campaign has identified integration of health and microfinance programming as one of its six pathways strategies key to ending extreme poverty. Poverty is both a factor contributing to and consequence of illness and disease, so it is not enough for clients to have access to financial services. The microfinance sector must look for ways to integrate healthcare to their microfinance services. Microfinance institutions (MFIs) can provide health services directly or through linkages with healthcare programs.

Campaign believes that microfinance services provide an optimal place for healthcare. Many MFIs are reaching very rural communities — to say nothing of savings groups, which are primarily a rural financial tool. MFIs have developed trust relationships with families; they meet regularly with clients and can, therefore, pass along information like how to care for their children. In addition, since many MFIs serve regions in Africa and South Asia where child mortality rates are the highest, a strong focus on healthcare will allow these organizations to directly combat this issue in the most afflicted regions.

Microfinance clients must also have access to good healthcare in order to run their businesses, and a healthy lifestyle begins at birth. In the “Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies: Kalinga kay Inay” project, microfinance clients are learning simple but important lessons like the food and nutritional supplements that pregnant and young women need and the importance of giving birth in a health facility. They are attending community health fairs organized by CARD MRI and partners, receiving free gynecological exams, urinalysis, and vitamins and supplements to improve their chances of delivering a healthy baby.

70 percent of maternal and child deaths are now concentrated in just 16 countries. Investments in sanitation, education, infrastructure, and gender equality can potentially double the impact on lives saved. Go to the Newborn Survival Map to learn more.

Integrating health and microfinance services will also support the efforts of the new Global Goals for Sustainable Development, which are set to be approved at the Sustainable Development Summit September 25 to 27. The ambitious Goal 3 (“Good health and well-being”) includes ending preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age by reducing child mortality to 20 or fewer deaths per 1000 births by 2030. It also seeks to reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention, treatment, and promotion of mental health and well being.

There also efforts underway in the United States to maximize future investments by US Agency for International Development (USAID). To reach the goal of ending preventable child and maternal deaths by 2035, USAID has set bold, intermediate goals of saving 15 million child lives and 600,000 women’s lives by 2020. RESULTS, a grassroots advocacy organization, is lobbying for bipartisan legislation that will provide strong congressional oversight and ensure that “returns [are] measured in lives saved and healthy, prosperous communities.” (See the Fact Sheet.)

“We now have the chance to end these needless deaths in our lifetime,” said Joanne Carter, executive director of RESULTS and RESULTS Educational Fund (our parent organization). “The science shows we have the tools. That means in 2035 a child born in the poorest setting could have the same chance of reaching her fifth birthday as a child born in the richest.”

The United Nations recently issued The Millennium Development Goals Report, 2015, the latest assessment of progress towards the eight MDGs. In short, they have had mixed results. This article is part of a blog series reflecting on the MDGs and the U.N. report. These are produced in partnership with our colleagues at RESULTS (our parent organization).

MDG 2 is focused on primary school enrollment for children everywhere, including the poorest of the poor. The children of tens of millions microfinance clients may be some of the “last milers” still left behind, still excluded from primary school, and many MFIs are actively working to solve the access gap in their own corner of the world. For example, ESAF Microfinance (India) has just launched a Commitment to reach at least 2,000 children with educational programs for academic growth and value education. Fafidess (Guatemala) committed to offer education loans to their clients.

Millennium Development Goal Achievements

Target 2.A: Ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling

From The Millennium Development Goals Report, 2015

During the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) period, the world saw a huge surge in the number of students enrolled in primary school. In 2015, an estimated 91 percent of all primary age students are enrolled in primary school with the largest increases in enrollment over the 15-year period found in sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia.

Worldwide, this impressive expansion in access has cut the number of out-of-school children by approximately half, from 100 million in 2000 to 57 million in 2015. This is especially impressive when seen in light of the rapidly expanding growth rate of the primary-school-age population in many regions.

Although the world fell short of the MDG 2 target, the growth in enrollment over the 15-year MDG period outpaced the decade before 2000, ensuring that a greater number of children have access to the education essential to their well-being and that of the wider community. These results clearly indicate that when attention and resources are strategically directed they can make a difference.

Equity Concerns

As impressive and important as the rapid expansion from the MDG period was, there are several concerns as the world moves beyond the MDGs to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs, also referred to as the “Global Goals”). While MDG 2 focused on universal enrollment in primary education the education, SDG (#4) attempts to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.”

The general shift from access to quality makes one wonder, who will be left behind? As the SDGs move forward, emphasis on the goals last two words “for all” is essential. Unfortunately, bringing the final 9 percent of students, the last milers, into school is challenging and expensive. Recent trends suggest that as the world moves forward to address the differences in student achievement and education quality, those left behind by our inability to completely close the access gap are further disadvantaged.

The challenge of reaching the last milers is illustrated by the stagnating global enrollment rate. Between 2000 and 2007 the global primary net enrollment rate quickly increased from 83 percent to 90 percent. Over the last seven years, however, the rate moved slightly from 90 percent to 91 percent. The missing 9 percent represent 57 million primary age children out of school.

Based on estimates made in 2012, 43 percent of these 57 million children are expected to never go to school. Identifying who these children are and including them in the education system is paramount to reaching the SDGs.

The Last Milers

The last milers represent students that have yet to be included in the rapid expansion of education from the MDGs. The number of last milers are difficult to calculate as they are at times invisible to society and living in extreme poverty.

From The Millennium Development Goals Report, 2015

Surveys suggest that these remaining out-of-school children are more likely to be female, live in a rural setting, or have a disability. Students in the poorest quintile are less likely to enroll in school or complete school if they do.

For example, while 9 percent of primary age children overall are not enrolled in primary school, 22 percent of children in the poorest quintile remain out of school. And, of those who do enter primary school, nearly 35 percent of children in the poorest quintile do not complete primary school. For the poorest 20 percent of children worldwide, this means that for every child in school, his or her sibling will not complete primary school while nearly 90 percent of children in the wealthiest 20 percent move onto secondary school.

Accessing education may be increasingly challenging for children in poor families in some areas. Countries such as Kenya, Uganda, and Ghana have seen a sharp increase in private schools that price these families out of education. When national governments abdicate responsibility and see private education as a substitution for public education, the well-researched equity concerns with private education are likely to leave the last milers on the outside looking in.

In addition to the groups mentioned above, children in conflict areas and children of refugees are especially struggling to enjoy the benefits of education. For example, the conflict in Syria not only reduced the enrollment rates of children in the country, but refugees that fled Syria found education in refugee camps sparse. Estimates from refugee camps in Lebanon from 2013 place the enrollment rate of children at approximately 12 percent, a sharp contrast from the 91 percent global number.

Collective Will

Ensuring that the last milers have access to education is a challenge to our collective will. The remaining 9 percent represent those with the highest per capita cost to access. A large financing gap remains in education globally with resources moving away from improving access and away from primary education. This trend suggests that in the coming years, reaching these last milers will be challenging, at best.

The transition of funding beyond primary education is evident in the decrease in official development assistance (ODA) from European Union institutions. ODA targeting basic education has fallen from 50 percent in 2002-2004 to 43 percent in 2009-2011. Furthermore, the focus on quality over access is illustrated by two developments. New projects funded by the United Kingdom’s Department of International Development (DFID) prioritize student achievement as the primary measure for education system quality, and the World Bank has recently shift education resources to results-based financing that focuses on student literacy and numeracy.

While quality is important, the stagnating enrollment rates from the past seven years and the shift in attention and resources away from access and toward quality, makes one question whether the last milers will be left behind in the SDG era.

About the author

William C. Smith is a Senior Associate with RESULTS Educational Fund where he is developing the Right to Education Index (RTEI). The index will eventually provide a globally comparative alternative measure to national education quality while identifying specific target areas for countries to address. Prior to this position he completed a dual title Ph.D. in Educational Theory and Policy and Comparative International Education at The Pennsylvania State University and was a Thomas J. Alexander Fellow at the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). His research addressing education’s role in international development and educator based testing for accountability has resulted in over 15 academic and policy publications. William is the editor a forthcoming book (Spring 2016) in the Oxford Studies in Comparative Education Series titled “The Global Testing Culture: Shaping Education Policy, Perspectives, and Practice.”

The United Nations recently issued The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015, the latest assessment of progress towards the eight MDGs. In short, they have had mixed results. This article is part of a blog series reflecting on the MDGs and the U.N. report. These are produced in partnership with our colleagues at RESULTS (our parent organization).

>>Authored by Sabina Rogers and Maeve McHugh with support from Anushree Shiroor from RESULTS UK

MDG 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

From The Millennium Development Goals Report, 2015

The overall number of people living in poverty in developing countries fell by more than half since 1990. The rate dropped to 14 percent in 2015 and the absolute number to 836 million people. There has also been significant progress made towards curbing hunger worldwide.

Target 1.A: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than $1.25 a day

Looking at the regional distribution of data, poverty reduction was concentrated in eastern and southern Asia thanks to immense poverty reduction measures in China and India. Progress is less apparent in other regions. In sub-Saharan Africa, 40 percent of the population still live in extreme poverty, and in western Asia, extreme poverty is actually expected to increase between 2011 and 2015.

The mix of progress and failure provides some guidance to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Namely, they must continue the campaign around eradicating extreme poverty while also confronting challenges that hinder progress in the regions that have seen marginal improvement.

While the world met its goal of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty, we must now look with a narrower lens at those remaining in extreme poverty. We must ask what changes must be made to the policies that did not succeed.

Full and productive employment

Target 1.B: Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people

From The Millennium Development Goals Report, 2015

This target faced various challenges. First, the global labor force grew, and continues to grow, faster than employment opportunities. The global working-age population that is employed actually declined 2 percent between 1991 and 2015. (The 2008-09 global economic crisis certainly didn’t help.)

Youth (15-24 years) are especially affected by unemployment, with three times as many unemployed than adults. Young women are especially affected by unemployment and have few employment opportunities. They face unequal access to work as well as unequal pay, inadequate social protection, and unsatisfactory access to assets. These factors all contribute to women’s overall greater vulnerability of living in poverty.

Additionally, the situation is precarious for both those living just above the $1.25 a day line and those working in vulnerable employment conditions (i.e., unpaid family workers and own-account workers). Half of the developing regions’ workforce live on less than $4 a day, necessitating improvements in social protection programs and policies that see beyond extreme poverty. We need to take into account what comes after.

Halving hunger

Target 1.C: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger

From The Millennium Development Goals Report, 2015

Progress has alternated between slow and rapid declines in the proportion of undernourished people since 1990. Current estimates indicate that approximately 795 million people are undernourished globally, and for the developing regions, the proportion of undernourished people is projected to drop to 12.9 percent, or 780 million, in 2014-2016.

The vast majority of undernourished people live in developing regions. They experience various risks of food insecurity, namely natural disasters, volatile commodity prices, rising food and energy costs, and periods of economic stagnation, among other difficulties.

Addressing child health, specifically, is an important challenge to tackle in order to end hunger. While the proportion of underweight children under the age of five has been halved, the absolute numbers are still high at 90 million. Furthermore, sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia are home to nearly 90 percent of all underweight children.

Looking Forward

The world has made immense progress in improving the lives of millions of people since 1990. While MDG 1 can be called a qualified success, the targets must remain a linchpin in the post-2015 agenda. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 1 is to “End poverty in all its forms everywhere.” However, the SDGs, which are to be approved at the U.N. General Assembly next month, need to address the shortfalls in reaching the MDGs within regions and the individual factors that combine to cause people to slide back into poverty.

SDG 2 proposes to “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.” While the MDGs considered only one aspect of undernutrition in children (i.e., underweight), we now have a better understanding of other forms. We know that stunting, wasting, micronutrient deficiencies, as well as overweight and obesity are all important factors to track. These indicators in the SDGs are more reliable than “underweight” alone in predicting growth, development, and well-being of children.

The World Health Assembly (WHA) has also set targets to reduce multiple forms of malnutrition by 2025. If we want the world to commit resources and take action to meet these targets, indicators must be built into the proposed SDGs to track these multiple forms of malnutrition the WHA is seeking to address.

However, early signs point to the inclusion of merely one or two undernutrition indicators as was the case with the MDGs. This will lead to a very limited body of data with which to understand progress in achieving SDG 2 and an inadequate basis on which to measure and predict children’s growth, development, and well-being. Indicators on reducing stunting, wasting, anemia, and overweight that come under SDG 2 as well as promotion of exclusive breastfeeding during the first six months of infancy within SDG 3 will give a much more accurate picture of actions being taken, and progress made.

Looking beyond 2015 and the MDGs, it is clear that microfinance has a role to play in supporting achievement of the SDGs. It can be a tool to generate sustainable growth and ultimately create self-sufficiency for poor and vulnerable households.

When proper targeting is employed…

When integrated with important non-financial services like health…

When coupled with government programs like conditional cash transfers…

When the business model measures “success” in terms of their client’s well-being…

When these measures are taken, then microfinance institutions can work directly with individuals living in the very conditions the SDGs are aiming to address. Those living in extreme poverty or fighting hunger can use microfinance as a tool to mitigate the risks they face and seize opportunities to build lasting and positive change in their lives.

The United Nation’s (U.N.) Inter-Agency and Expert Group on MDG Indicators recently issued the latest assessment of progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in a 75-page report. The Millennium Development Goals Report, 2015 is a rich document presenting data on each of the eight goals. In short, the MDGs have had mixed results, and the headline of one billion people lifted out of extreme poverty (living on less than US $1 a day) is almost entirely a result of the massive gains in China and India.

The 2015 MDG report presents the successes and shortcomings in the areas reducing poverty, increasing employment, and eradicating hunger. In the foreword, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon extolled these successes while conceding that “inequalities persist and that progress has been uneven.” Specifically, few countries met their poverty alleviation targets, and women and other vulnerable groups still tend to be excluded in what gains there were. Maternal and child health is still a very serious problem around the world (especially these 17 countries), including the Philippines, where we have a project with Freedom from Hunger and CARD MRI whose express purpose is to address this problem.

In just a few weeks, world leaders will convene in New York to finalize the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the successors to the MDGs. (Here is the SDG agenda for the U.N. Summit.) What is most important for the international community to consider is what worked with the MDGs and why. Moreover, we should take inspiration from the fact that the MDGs did reshape our world. Ban Ki-moon says it best:

“By putting people and their immediate needs at the forefront, the MDGs reshaped decision-making in developed and developing countries alike…Reflecting on the MDGs and looking ahead to the next fifteen years, there is no question that we can deliver on our shared responsibility to put an end to poverty, leave no one behind and create a world of dignity for all.”

In the coming weeks, we will be publishing articles reflecting on each MDG and the assessment as presented in the 2015 report from the U.N. These are produced in partnership with our colleagues at RESULTS (our parent organization), a non-profit that supports a movement of passionate, committed everyday people who use their voices to influence political decisions that will bring an end to poverty. RESULTS grassroots volunteers have been instrumental in so many (often unsung) ways over the years to bring about the successes that we do see in the 2015 report.

Elizabeth Littlefield, CEO of CGAP in 2004, said at the 2004 Microcredit Summit in Bangladesh, “There is no evidence of a necessary trade-off between poverty and sustainability.”Read her full quote on page 12 of the 2004 State of the Campaign Report.

We are pleased to bring you this #ThursdayThrowback blog post, which was originally published in The State of the Microcredit Summit Campaign Report 2004. The RESULTS International Conference is only three weeks away (July 18-21), and grassroots activists from the U.S. and around the world will be in D.C. to lobby the USAID Administrator and World Bank Directors. Therefore, we’re reviewing advocacy successes and struggles in the early 2000s. This week, we look at a breakthrough we achieved in getting the World Bank to recognize microfinance as an important strategic element in reducing poverty and announcing that they were committed to increasing their funding for microfinance.

In this introduction to the State of the Microcredit Summit Campaign Report, rather than presenting a neat, uncontested picture of the field of microcredit seen solely from the Campaign’s perspective, we think it useful to listen to the challenges and opposition to what the Campaign and these parliamentarians have championed, coming as it does from some of the most influential institutions in development. In the pages that follow, we invite you to listen in on debates that contrast the views of the World Bank and CGAP with those of industry leaders like BRAC founder Fazle Abed, Grameen Bank founder Muhammad Yunus, and the Microcredit Summit Campaign. What follows are excerpts from the World Bank and CGAP’s responses to the 700 parliamentarians, along with reactions from the Microcredit Summit Campaign.

In his response to 188 British Parliamentarians, World Bank President James Wolfensohn wrote, “I very much agree with your observation that microfinance has a demonstrated, powerful impact in improving the livelihood of the poor, and a crucial role in reducing poverty. Access to financial services for the poor is a critical condition for the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals.”

This is a tremendous vote of confidence from Mr. Wolfensohn, but if, as Wolfensohn says, “access to financial services for the poor is a critical condition for the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),” then reaching those below $1 a day is also critical. Mr. Wolfensohn acknowledges the poverty goal, which seeks to cut absolute poverty in half by 2015, as the lead MDG. Absolute poverty is measured by those living below $1 a day, adjusted for purchasing power parity. This show of support is important, but the words must be followed by more effective action.

Wolfensohn asked officials from the World Bank and the Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP), to jointly address the detailed issues raised in the parliamentarians’ letter.

World Bank and CGAP officials begin their own response to the parliamentarians on a hopeful note when they write that microfinance forms “…an important strategic element in any broad based effort to reduce poverty,” and assert that the World Bank and CGAP “are committed to massively scaling up this access to financial services.”

While it is good for the Bank to declare microfinance as an important strategic element in reducing poverty, there is still a disconnect between this assertion and the fact that microfinance constitutes less than one percent of annual Bank spending. Assigning such a low priority to microfinance is neither strategic nor a sign it is viewed as important. There is also a disconnect between the Bank’s enviable commitment “to massively scaling up…access to financial services,” and the fact that the Bank offers nothing measurable in response to the parliamentarians’ request to double spending. It would seem that a massive scale-up would at least equal a doubling from less than one percent to less than two percent.

World Bank and Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (WB/CGAP) officials continue by saying, “While the World Bank Group already provides more microfinance funding than any other agency, we remain committed to doing much more. The fundamental constraint to an exponential increase in the numbers of poor people receiving financial access is, however, a real absence of retail institutional capacity. Building this capacity is an integral part of the financial systems of our client countries and is, therefore, a critical task for the World Bank Group and other agencies.”

MCS: The World Bank should provide more microfinance funds than any other agency given that its overall portfolio dwarfs that of all other bilateral and multilateral donor institutions. However, the World Bank does not provide more funding than any agency. USAID surpasses the Bank’s total spending in microfinance. In addition, more than one percent of USAID’s funds and more than three percent of UNDP funds[5] go to microfinance.

Retail institutional capacity does exist. Some of the global and domestic partners of a number of institutions and networks are either already reaching very poor clients or gearing up to do so as a result of the new U.S. law. These include institutions and networks such as ASA, BRAC, PKSF[6] and Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, NABARD and SIDBI in India, Pro Mujer, Freedom from Hunger, Opportunity International, FINCA, CARE, Save the Children, Catholic Relief Services, World Vision, Katalysis, Grameen Foundation U.S.A., ACCION and World Relief in the U.S., Développement international Desjardins in Canada, members of The Africa Microfinance Network (AFMIN), Sanabel members in the Middle East and North Africa, and members of REDCAMIF and Foro Latinoamericano y del Caribe de Finanzas Rurales in Latin America.

PKSF alone estimates that for the six years beginning July 2004 and ending in June 2010, $562 million could be absorbed by its 192 Bangladeshi partner organizations and those to come. This is in just one country.

There are scores of institutions around the world that have demonstrated the vision and systems to reach the very poor sustainably. To say there is “a real absence of retail institutional capacity” is to imply that whatever capacity exists has been fully exploited. This is clearly not the case. The greater problem is the low priority donor agencies place on finding institutions with the vision and systems necessary for expansion to the very poor, not the “absence of retail institutional capacity.”

WB/CGAP: We agree with the spirit of your recommendation that at least 50% of World Bank funds should be reaching those living on less than a dollar a day. However, we do not think that earmarking funds would be the best strategic choice for moving the microfinance industry towards sustainably serving much larger numbers of those in absolute poverty. In fact, such directed lending could have an adverse effect on scaling up, through distorting markets. Many MFIs achieve sustainability through increasing outreach to a larger diversified client group. They end up serving much larger absolute numbers of the very poor, even though they may have a smaller percentage of very poor clients in comparison with poverty-focused institutions that are not sustainable. Such MFIs would be penalized through the suggested mandate.

MCS: Institutions that do not exclusively, or even predominantly, target the poorest need not be penalized. The parliamentarians are not asking that all MFIs reach the very poor or that half of an MFI’s clients fall below $1 a day when they entered the program. They are asking that, on balance, half of World Bank spending in microfinance go to people who were very poor when they started with the program. Within the World Bank’s portfolio there might be a group of institutions that primarily serves better-off clients, another group with a more mixed clientele, and a third group largely serving those starting below $1 a day. Yet institutions such as the World Bank have not provided incentives to reach those below $1 a day. If anything, the Bank and others have discouraged depth of outreach. This is why the parliamentarians believe earmarking is required. The World Bank/CGAP response leaves the impression, however unintended, that programs reaching very poor clients may be less sustainable, but this is far from current reality. CGAP CEO, Elizabeth Littlefield, backed that up with remarks made at the Asia/Pacific Microcredit Summit held in Dhaka, Bangladesh in February 2004.

“There is no evidence of a necessary trade-off between poverty and sustainability,” Littlefield said in Dhaka. “…Very recent data from our MicroBanking Bulletin (MBB) and from The Microfinance Information eXchange (The MIX) show us that the best poverty-focused microfinance institutions are breaking right through conventional wisdom. Of the 124 microfinance institutions reporting to the MBB, 66 were fully selfsufficient. Of those, 18 were institutions that work with very poor populations, the poorest. These 18 institutions had higher average sustainability, higher return on assets, and higher return on equity than the overall averages. Sustainable microfinance institutions that serve lower end markets, the poorest, reach, on average, one and a half times as many borrowers as other microfinance [institutions] and they do it with fewer resources. Hence, these institutions do a much better job of stretching their resources to reach more clients. In terms of clients served, they are far more efficient with their human resources, serving each borrower at half the cost, on average, of a sustainable institution serving higher market segments.”

Footnotes

[5] Approximately two percent of USAID funds and three percent of UNDP funds go to microfinance.

We are pleased to bring you this #ThursdayThrowback blog post, which was originally published in The State of the Microcredit Summit Campaign Report 2004. The RESULTS International Conference is only three weeks away (July 18-21), and grassroots activists from the U.S. and around the world will be in D.C. to lobby the USAID Administrator and World Bank Directors. Therefore, in the weeks leading up to that great event, we’ll review advocacy successes and struggles in the early 2000s wherein we achieved breakthroughs in poverty measurement in order to target the extreme poor and other concessions from USAID and the World Bank.

The revolution in reaching the very poor is most evident in a new U.S. law and the resistance to it by some leaders in international development. The law, which was enacted in June 2003, calls for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to develop and certify two or more cost-effective poverty measurement tools that measure $1 a day poverty. The new tools are to replace loan size, which is currently used and has proven to be inadequate for poverty measurement. As Freedom from Hunger President Chris Dunford remarked, “The average loan size for entering clients tells you more about the institution making the loan than it does about the poverty level of the person receiving it.”

After the newly mandated tools are certified, institutions receiving microenterprise funds from USAID will be required to use one of them and report the number of entering clients who start below $1 a day. The law is an effort to bring accountability and transparency to the long-standing Congressional commitment to have at least half of USAID microenterprise funds benefit very poor clients. This new law, particularly if it is adopted by other aid-giving countries and institutions, would have a great impact on the Microcredit Summit’s commitment to reaching the very poor and provide tremendous support to the MDG focused on halving the number of families living below $1 a day by 2015.

While the new law demonstrates the revolution that is taking place in microfinance, efforts to expand the revolution have been met with resistance. This resistance comes from major development institutions that have been asked to adopt policies similar to the new U.S. law — The World Bank, the regional development banks, and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).

In November 2003 more than 700 parliamentarians from the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Australia, India, and Mexico wrote to the heads of the World Bank, the Asian, African, and Inter-American Development Banks, and UNDP. The parliamentarians lauded the institutions’ commitment to achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which they said are “crucial to building a safer and more equitable world — and will show our constituents that development programs are truly making a difference.”

The parliamentarians continue with a concern that:

…sustainable microfinance for the very poor has not received sufficient priority in your policies and practice aimed at cutting absolute poverty in half by 2015, the most crucial — and most difficult — of the MDGs. As important as it is to support well-designed health, education, and good governance programs, these interventions alone will not ensure that some 600 million people move out of poverty.

The parliamentarians ask the heads of these powerful institutions for the following:

Increased funding for microenterprise: We urge you to make substantial increases in the proportion of your institutions’ lending and grants that go to microenterprise and actually reach clients. For example, the World Bank estimates that an average of $168 million in funding, less than one percent of Bank resources approved annually, is approved each year for microenterprise. We believe resources devoted to microenterprise should at least be doubled (emphasis added).

At least 50 percent of funds reaching the poorest: By December 31, 2004, we would like to see your institutions make the commitment to having at least 50 percent of your microfinance funds reach clients who are below US$1 a day when they start with a program.

Use of cost-effective poverty measurement tools to ensure meeting the target: By December 31, 2005, the microenterprise institutions should be required to use cost-effective poverty measurement tools that can determine which families start below US$1 a day and use the same or similar tools to show which families have moved above US$1 a day.

Annual reporting of results: By December 31, 2006, we would urge your institutions to report, on an annual basis, the amount of funds provided for microenterprise and the percentage of those funds that reach families who begin with a program at below US$1 a day.

In their letter, the parliamentarians discuss the new U.S. law and say, “We believe your institutions should be a vital part of this process and urge you to adopt a similar procedure.”

“Wars of nations are fought to change maps. But wars of poverty are fought to map change.”
— Muhammad Ali

After the success of Generation Next: Innovation in Microfinance, our 17th Microcredit Summit (Mexico in 2014), the Microcredit Summit Campaign conducted a Listening Tour to identify how this next generation could contribute to ending extreme poverty (those living on less than $1.25 a day) by 2030. The theme that emerges from this consultation will be reflected across the Campaign: in the 2015 State of the Campaign Report, the 18th Microcredit Summit, and Campaign Commitments.

With the post-2015 development agenda under negotiation, the financial inclusion and microfinance sectors have an opportunity to assess our role in shaping the international development framework and reflect on the impact we can have on the lives of millions of the world´s extreme poor. Our Listening Tour was the first step in surveying our coalition of partners to see what our role in this endeavor should be.

The Listening Tour was our time to listen — and your time to speak — on the issues that the microfinance and financial inclusion sector face and served two purposes. First, it was our hope to find out how our audience (you) felt about the World Bank’s goal of eradicating poverty by 2030, and equally important, we wished to consult you in identifying the topics that were most pressing and urgent.

We collected your feedback through an online survey where we received 151 responses from participants from around the world representing practitioners, advocates and support organizations, funders, investors, policymakers, and regulators. We also conducted phone interviews with 27 leaders in the microfinance and financial inclusion sectors. Below are some key findings from our Listening Tour calls and survey.

1. Ending extreme poverty.

Our members believe that our main objective should be to end extreme poverty, but they acknowledge that microfinance and financial inclusion actors need to be mobilized around this objective. We need to take a leadership role in re-focusing the microfinance sector on a pro-poor mission and helping the microfinance community build confidence in a system that protects and benefits those who we serve. In order to accomplish this, we need to galvanize new visionaries and champions for the movement.

The strategy for achieving both universal financial access by 2020 and the 2030 goal must be clear, and clear linkages should be created between these two goals. In addition, we need to clarify the definition of financial inclusion, especially in how it relates to ending extreme poverty. We cannot get to full financial inclusion unless inclusive financial systems are created that serve the extreme poor.

3. Defining roles.

It’s unclear what role each stakeholder plays in achieving these goals. Our challenge is to create a unified voice in support of this agenda among a diverse group of microfinance stakeholders, who sometimes have divergent priorities. How do we design a strategy and create a sense of responsibility to provide the appropriate products and services that help people move out of poverty?

4. Pushing innovation while maintaining client protection.

Innovation is key, and technology will need play an important role in reaching full financial inclusion. The microfinance community tends to copy successful ideas but hesitates when it comes to new methodologies. While we need to do away with this risk-averse culture when it comes to innovation, we need to make sure there is adequate regulation and client protection practices in place where our clients could be vulnerable.

Organizations that made a Campaign Commitment are recognized on stage at the 17th Microcredit Summit in Mexico.

5. Financial inclusion to end extreme poverty: six pathways.

Finally, we saw an emphasis on six topics that we have framed as our “pathways out of poverty;” these are financial inclusion strategies that reach people living in extreme poverty and facilitates their movement out of poverty:

Let’s take a quick ride down memory lane. In February 1997, we convened the first Microcredit Summit in Washington, D.C., bringing together more than 2,900 delegates from 137 countries. This event resulted in the Declaration and Plan of Action in which Summit delegates promised to work towards making the Campaign a “global effort to restore control to people over their own lives and destinies” [1]. Since 1997, the Microcredit Summit Campaign has been leading, supporting, and guiding the microfinance field to address failures in reaching the extreme poor.

Jump forward to 2015. We still have a lot of work to do, but the will of our community to map out a better future together is evident. This is a time for change and transformation in the global development sector, and we must be bold in setting our goals.

We have taken it upon ourselves to make sure that the microfinance and financial inclusion movement is included as a tool in ending extreme poverty by 2030. Financial inclusion needs to serve the bigger purpose of helping people in poverty mitigate vulnerability, build resilience, and take advantage of opportunity. But, to reach the ambitious goal of ending extreme poverty by 2030, we need to draw a map of how to get there. We need to show how digital payments, savings groups, conditional cash transfers, agricultural value chains, and graduation programs intersect with other sectors like health, education, housing, and nutrition to build pathways out of poverty. We must map out pathways for how these different interventions, stakeholders, and initiatives can work together to achieve our shared goal.

We share responsibility for promoting microfinance and financial inclusion practices that put clients at the center and show progress toward poverty eradication. At the World Bank’s 2015 Spring Meetings, the Campaign made a commitment to support the World Bank Group’s goal to reach universal financial access by 2020 (UFA2020). Through our commitment, we have joined a global coalition of partners that includes Visa, Mandiri, the State Bank of India, the World Council of Credit Unions, WSBI, the Microfinance CEO Working Group (a group of 10 international microfinance networks), Telenor, Ooredoo, Equity Bank, and Bandhan.

We know that the hardest part of reaching UFA2020 will be to ensure that financial services reach those living in extreme poverty, and the Microcredit Summit Campaign will work with its reporting institutions to help them expand their outreach by at least 53 million of the world’s poorest families, bringing the overall total of the world’s poorest families reached by microfinance to 175 million by 2020.

UFA2020 will be a stepping stone to achieving the post-2015 development agenda, and the Campaign will document what is being done well and disseminate those lessons far and wide through the State of the Campaign Report and our Microcredit Summits. The 18th Microcredit Summit will be an opportunity to learn about these six pathways and engage in a thoughtful discussion around the role each of us plays.

We invite you to join us and take part in leading this movement; start by organizing a breakout session for the 18th Microcredit Summit and making a Campaign Commitment. Submit your breakout session proposal for the 18th Microcredit Summit, and use our platform to inform our community about what you are doing to contribute to our common mission. You can also join our own coalition of Campaign Commitment makers by announcing specific, measurable, and time-bound actions that you will take to support our goal of helping 100 million families lift themselves out of extreme poverty. This is a key step in reaching the end of extreme poverty by 2030, and by focusing on our six pathways, we can design a better future and create a map of opportunity.

For its fourth year Stand Up and Take Action will take place worldwide this year October 16 to 18 to advocate the leaders of the planet and request them to keep their promises to eradicate poverty and to carry out the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

MDGs were established “in September 2000, building upon a decade of major United Nations conferences and summits, world leaders came together at United Nations Headquarters in New York to adopt the United Nations Millennium Declaration, committing their nations to a new global partnership to reduce extreme poverty and setting out a series of time-bound targets – with a deadline of 2015 – that have become known as the Millennium Development Goals.” (United Nations Millennium Development Goals)

Stand Up and Take Action is co-organized by the UN Millennium Campaign and the Global Call to Action Against Poverty (GCAP). The inception of UN Millennium Campaign was launched with the signatures of the 189 world leaders onto the Millennium Declaration and agreed to meet the MDGs. GCAP is a grouping of various organizations from the civil society calling the leaders to end poverty and inequality around the world.

Visit Stand Up 2009 and Take Action: be part of the movement to end poverty! You will find on the Website information about events happening all around the world, success stories and information on how to create your own events or join one!

Social Media

Events

Join our mailing list

Top Posts & Pages

Archives

Archives

This blog is no longer being regularly updated. If you would like to get involved in global financial inclusion actions, contact info[at]microcreditsummit.org.

DISCLAIMER The views and opinions expressed on this blog are solely those of the original authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Microcredit Summit Campaign and/or any/all contributors to this site.